Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Global warming

Options
1246752

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    With only a million people, desertification won't be an issue now, will it?

    And yes, the only solution remains reducing population hence reducing the global warming impact. More food == more people, no different than animals.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,740 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Yes plenty of organisations have backed them, and more are coming.

    Can you name some of the reputable organisations (& I did say reputable in my original question!) that have backed this organisation?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit




  • Registered Users Posts: 16,219 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    I haven't seen a study that says we can't feed everyone on the planet. the problem is inefficiency. The calories produced per hectare, especially in Ireland, is terrible.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    Why wouldnt it be? Population isn’t causing it, its lack of animals on the land and poor management. And were still gonna have climate change!

    Listen to what your saying, your saying having more food is bad. There’s million’s of people all over the world starving!!!! 🫣

    Does the world need 10 billion people on the planet? Probably not. There is only a finite amount of resources after all.

    Maybe the population will go down naturally with better education etc but we still have to manage people, environments & economies. Those 3 are inseparable



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,740 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    So you're not going to provide backup to your claims unless I provide an alternative solution?

    That approach does not say much for your cult!

    How does your cult square the circle of intensive agriculture creating biodiversity loss and at the same time growing more food?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    Ahh stop I’m done. There’s no point. Stupid! Reduced to name calling usually a good indicator that somebodys losing the debate.

    iv backed up everything i said and you’ve only criticised.

    whats your solution’s so??

    And how do we grow food without creating biodiversity loss? Holistic Management.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,740 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    You have not backed up anything. You've posted a few Youtube links and an old article in a newspaper. I asked you a simple question regarding the veracity of the organisation that you believe has the solution and you made your response conditional. So far, you have provided nothing to make anyone believe that your organisation of choice is nothing but a cult!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    Did you watch any of the videos, its not my problem or fault you ain’t getting it.

    Now your solutions? Please



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,740 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Nope. Why would I watch them given that you are reluctant to name a single reputable body that endorses them?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    You might Learn something!

    You asked for reputable body i gave you the link’s you didn’t bother watching you just said.

    How about you name a reputable body so that’s adressing climate change, biodiversity loss, fires, flooding, desertification while feeding people all at the same time.

    I’ve had my say, now your turn mate



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,529 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    why do people keep quoting allan savory? he's regarded as a crackpot with an openly racist past, and who rejects the scientific method.

    a random sample from his wikipedia page:

    "In May 1973, Savory stated that the Rhodesia Party supported racial segregation including of schools and hospitals, recommending that only Africans who have to work in towns such as domestic servants should be housed in urban areas - and suggested the introduction of a "Minister for Population Control" who would handle the "population explosion" among Africans."



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    A minister for population control 😂

    isnt that what igotadose is advocating for!!



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,766 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    And not producing any research still... Eg the research I provided earlier points to how they overestimate the amount of carbon the land takes by seven times... So it's not particularly special or effective. They could release research to prove it if it was true....



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,590 ✭✭✭cfuserkildare


    It's amazing how the media has brainwashed people into submission these days,

    We are being taxed to death for a natural event that we cannot stop.

    No matter how many electric cars we buy, the earth will still get hotter.

    Modern records only go back to the 1880s, so proper historical environmental data is not reliable, it's only 5 generations old.

    But again I ask, how many cars were on the roads when the last warming period started?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,529 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    nah, it's not the media that has 'brainwashed' me into accepting that global warming is not a natural event, it's the scientists who have.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    All the evidence is there, i provided the links. Ye arent watching them.

    and your focus on only carbon sequestration is the absolute problem with today’s thinking.

    id still take any bit of carbon sequestration on over 2 third’s of the planet over desert anyday!!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    unreal isn’t it. If I discovered fire today and said it can do everything it can do, scientists would ask “where’s the peer reviewed papers” to back that up!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    The same scientist’s that are causing all of the problem’s? Were in the age of science arent we?

    Isn’t it science that’s created chemicals, pollutants, plastic pollution & nuclear bombs!!

    Start looking at the world with your own eye’s



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭Upstream


    I wish this topic wasn't so divisive.

    I'm a part time farmer and I'm doing the best I can to farm in a way that's good for the environment, while being economically viable.

    This means turning a ship around and learning how to deal with a much different reality. For years we were told to farm more intensively with more and more inputs, eliminate biodiversity, and use every last inch of land for production, and if you didn't you were penalized. Now we're being told to do more or less the opposite.

    I'm looking to see what solutions are out there.

    From what I can see, Savory's approach works best in brittle environments that are very easily damaged by overgrazing. There's a lot more forgiveness in temperate European climates. Often times this overgrazing happened when colonial settlers took European farming methods to these other lands, they managed land the way it was managed in Europe, after a few years the of good production, the buffers of plants and carbon were depleted, soil was damaged and production fell dramatically. I've seen several presentations where people have used Savory's method on different continents to regenerate their lands and increase production while increasing the carbon in their soils. They seem to be honest and I've taken their testimonies at face value.

    The planet is desertifying, excessive tillage and overgrazing have caused much of this. This much is factual.

    It's also a fact that 15 - 20% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from ploughing.

    It's Savory's opinion that Holistic Management is a tool that can be used to regenerate damaged ecosystems and reverse this desertification.

    But there are, as several people have pointed out, no big institutions getting behind his methods and verifying the science of his methods, so we're at at an impasse there.

    The closest I've seen is work like this by scientists such as David Johnson and Richard Teague, but they're looking more specifically at adaptive multi-paddock grazing rather that Savory's more general Holistic Management.


    If you don't like Savory's approach, there are other solutions closer to home.

    The science behind multi-species swards is emerging but decent. It's good for several reasons including soil health, water quality and biodiversity. I don't have any planted myself but I hope to put some in next year. It will be a learning curve, trying to learn to manage it so all the species establish successfully and are not lost by over grazing or mismanagement. But it should reduce fertilizer use and improve animal health.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit




  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,529 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    uh, no, apart from the sheer facileness of your post, they're not the same scientists. climate scientists did not invent nukes.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,590 ✭✭✭cfuserkildare


    Nope,

    Guess again!!

    How did we cause the change is surface temperature 50 million years ago?

    How did we cause the first glacial period?

    Look at the historical record, not the nonsense being spouted by leftist green environmentalists.

    What we normal people are being subjected to us Facism at its purist, If we don't agree with you then we are all wrong.

    Get your head out of the sand and do your own research!!!



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,529 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Are you being serious? If I do my own proper research you'll accuse me of being a scientist and instantly dismiss my findings. Unless you happen to like the results.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,104 ✭✭✭Shoog


    There are a lot of claims for this system that it can reverse climate change by sequestering progressively more carbon in the soil. This is simply not true, the technique can restore soil fertility and health and sequester a certain amount of carbon - but a healthy temperate soil eventually reaches an equlilbrium where it give3s out as much carbon as it takes in. This usually happend after around 30-50years. Its a very good thing and can play a small part in reducing climate change - but ultimately if we keep pumping millions of years worth of fossil carbon into the atmosphere we are still literally cooked. A huge very rapid release of sequestered carbon as we have undertaken in the last century or so is more than enough to unbalance the whole planetary system. The planet undoubtedly will survive as it has survived similar massive release before - but like 90% of life we will not be around to see it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    Sounds a bit like Alan Savorys

    What are you actually struggling with about the method of Holistic Land Management and decision making?? That’s it isn’t pulling enough carbon from the air?

    where is the science failing?


    I have one for ye, lets use teagasc our own agricultural institution. Its standard practice in teagasc to tell farmers spray chemicals on crops, using massive amounts of fertiliser to grow grass, plough green fields of grass and seed new grass!!

    Now to any reasonably minded person, you don’t need a peer review paper to know that’s terrible practices for the environment and human health.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    I think that’s a fair trade off.

    I’ll take 50 odd year’s of clean air, water & food if it means a little bit more carbon goes into the atmosphere, a real smart deal. Means no more climate event’s and environment disaster’s or famine or poverty.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,104 ✭✭✭Shoog


    But it doesn't, it just slows things down a bit. It's no magic bullet that gets us out of the mess we have created.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,676 ✭✭✭thinkabouit


    I reckon we would be grand, chance it!

    Wht other option’s do we have. Were in big big trouble otherwise



Advertisement